SummaryChinese global engagements are deepening across sectors and geographic regions. The objective of BROKEX is to fill specific gaps in knowledge about how China’s extraversion advances. The project takes an original approach by examining brokers who mediate in transnational fields. It opens the “black box” of China’s global integration by moving beyond descriptions of input and output characteristics to elucidate underlying dynamics. The objective will be achieved in two phases. First, the PI and two postdoctoral researchers will carry out ethnographic case studies in the Pearl River Delta, South China, that yield complementary information on the common challenge of brokering across geographic scales: * Connecting low-cost Chinese manufacturing with African markets; * Integrating Chinese academic research with global scientific communities; * Transnational architecture production. The diverse cases offer insights into the mechanisms of brokerage across distinctive sectors. In the second step, we build on the empirical findings and literature to develop brokerage theory. Social scientific research on brokerage commonly uses the morphology of social networks as its starting point, and focuses on how actors positioned at the intersection between groups operate. BROKEX adopts an innovative approach by examining how actors strategically seek to shape network morphologies in order to bridge gaps between groups. By directing theoretical attention towards relationship formation that precedes acts of brokerage, this line of inquiry advances understandings of how and why brokered connections emerge. Ethnographic case studies combined with critical theorization will generate new knowledge about the processes beneath the “rise of China” ─ one of the most consequential socioeconomic developments of our times.

Chinese global engagements are deepening across sectors and geographic regions. The objective of BROKEX is to fill specific gaps in knowledge about how China’s extraversion advances. The project takes an original approach by examining brokers who mediate in transnational fields. It opens the “black box” of China’s global integration by moving beyond descriptions of input and output characteristics to elucidate underlying dynamics. The objective will be achieved in two phases. First, the PI and two postdoctoral researchers will carry out ethnographic case studies in the Pearl River Delta, South China, that yield complementary information on the common challenge of brokering across geographic scales: * Connecting low-cost Chinese manufacturing with African markets; * Integrating Chinese academic research with global scientific communities; * Transnational architecture production. The diverse cases offer insights into the mechanisms of brokerage across distinctive sectors. In the second step, we build on the empirical findings and literature to develop brokerage theory. Social scientific research on brokerage commonly uses the morphology of social networks as its starting point, and focuses on how actors positioned at the intersection between groups operate. BROKEX adopts an innovative approach by examining how actors strategically seek to shape network morphologies in order to bridge gaps between groups. By directing theoretical attention towards relationship formation that precedes acts of brokerage, this line of inquiry advances understandings of how and why brokered connections emerge. Ethnographic case studies combined with critical theorization will generate new knowledge about the processes beneath the “rise of China” ─ one of the most consequential socioeconomic developments of our times.

SummaryClimate change may be undermining the stock of seasonal representations that society draws on to understand and live according to the weather. The CALENDARS project studies how modern society represents seasons, and how these representations shape institutions and help people live with seasonal change. The project opens an important emerging field in climate adaptation research by examining the representations of ‘normal’ seasons underlying key institutions, assesses their quality for successful adaptation to rapid climate change, and analyses facilitators and barriers to adopting representations more flexibly to new climates. It contributes a novel perspective on how to transform our institutions – from schools to farmer cooperatives – from the foundational culture and representations up, to better fit the changing seasonal cycles we are experiencing.
CALENDARS empirically explores the relationship between different institutions’ ideas of seasons and their successful adaptation through an in-depth comparative study of a set of institutions in two local communities, in Norway and New Zealand. It is steered by an overall objective to: ‘Advance knowledge and understanding of how seasonal representations shape and are shaped by institutions, and critically appraise the quality of these representations for contributing to successful adaptation to seasonal change’.
Conceptually, CALENDARS looks at representations as continuously ‘co-produced’ at the boundary of nature and society, and society and institutions. It tests a novel reconceptualisation of co-production as a prism; with each of the project’s three phases looking at the complex processes by which representations emerge through different ‘lenses’ of co-production. Methodologically, the project tests the feasibility of a novel basket of bespoke methods spanning narrative interviews, calendar boundary objects and collaborative sustainability science.

Climate change may be undermining the stock of seasonal representations that society draws on to understand and live according to the weather. The CALENDARS project studies how modern society represents seasons, and how these representations shape institutions and help people live with seasonal change. The project opens an important emerging field in climate adaptation research by examining the representations of ‘normal’ seasons underlying key institutions, assesses their quality for successful adaptation to rapid climate change, and analyses facilitators and barriers to adopting representations more flexibly to new climates. It contributes a novel perspective on how to transform our institutions – from schools to farmer cooperatives – from the foundational culture and representations up, to better fit the changing seasonal cycles we are experiencing.
CALENDARS empirically explores the relationship between different institutions’ ideas of seasons and their successful adaptation through an in-depth comparative study of a set of institutions in two local communities, in Norway and New Zealand. It is steered by an overall objective to: ‘Advance knowledge and understanding of how seasonal representations shape and are shaped by institutions, and critically appraise the quality of these representations for contributing to successful adaptation to seasonal change’.
Conceptually, CALENDARS looks at representations as continuously ‘co-produced’ at the boundary of nature and society, and society and institutions. It tests a novel reconceptualisation of co-production as a prism; with each of the project’s three phases looking at the complex processes by which representations emerge through different ‘lenses’ of co-production. Methodologically, the project tests the feasibility of a novel basket of bespoke methods spanning narrative interviews, calendar boundary objects and collaborative sustainability science.

Max ERC Funding

1 489 426 €

Duration

Start date: 2019-01-01, End date: 2023-12-31

Project acronymCLIMSEC

ProjectClimate Variability and Security Threats

Researcher (PI)Halvard Buhaug

Host Institution (HI)INSTITUTT FOR FREDSFORSKNING STIFTELSE

Call DetailsConsolidator Grant (CoG), SH2, ERC-2014-CoG

SummaryRecent uprisings across the world have accentuated claims that food insecurity is an important trigger of political violence. Is the Arab Spring representative of a general climate-conflict pattern, where severe droughts and other climate anomalies are a key driving force? Research to date has failed to conclude on a robust relationship but several notable theoretical and methodological shortcomings limit inference. CLIMSEC will address these research gaps. It asks: How does climate variability affect dynamics of political violence? This overarching research question will be addressed through the accomplishment of four key objectives: (1) Investigate how food security impacts of climate variability affect political violence; (2) Investigate how economic impacts of climate variability affect political violence; (3) Conduct short-term forecasts of political violence in response to food and economic shocks; and (4) Develop a comprehensive, testable theoretical model of security implications of climate variability. To achieve these objectives, CLIMSEC will advance the research frontier on theoretical as well as analytical accounts. Central in this endeavor is conceptual and empirical disaggregation. Instead of assuming states and calendar years as unitary and fixed entities, the project proposes causal processes that act at multiple temporal and spatial scales, involve various types of actors, and lead to very different forms of outcomes depending on the context. The empirical component will make innovative use of new geo - referenced data and methods; focus on a broad range of insecurity outcomes, including non-violent resistance; and combine rigorous statistical models with out-of-sample simulations and qualitative case studies for theorizing and validation of key findings. Based at PRIO, the project will be led by Research Professor Halvard Buhaug, a leading scholar on climate change and security with strong publication record and project management experience.

Recent uprisings across the world have accentuated claims that food insecurity is an important trigger of political violence. Is the Arab Spring representative of a general climate-conflict pattern, where severe droughts and other climate anomalies are a key driving force? Research to date has failed to conclude on a robust relationship but several notable theoretical and methodological shortcomings limit inference. CLIMSEC will address these research gaps. It asks: How does climate variability affect dynamics of political violence? This overarching research question will be addressed through the accomplishment of four key objectives: (1) Investigate how food security impacts of climate variability affect political violence; (2) Investigate how economic impacts of climate variability affect political violence; (3) Conduct short-term forecasts of political violence in response to food and economic shocks; and (4) Develop a comprehensive, testable theoretical model of security implications of climate variability. To achieve these objectives, CLIMSEC will advance the research frontier on theoretical as well as analytical accounts. Central in this endeavor is conceptual and empirical disaggregation. Instead of assuming states and calendar years as unitary and fixed entities, the project proposes causal processes that act at multiple temporal and spatial scales, involve various types of actors, and lead to very different forms of outcomes depending on the context. The empirical component will make innovative use of new geo - referenced data and methods; focus on a broad range of insecurity outcomes, including non-violent resistance; and combine rigorous statistical models with out-of-sample simulations and qualitative case studies for theorizing and validation of key findings. Based at PRIO, the project will be led by Research Professor Halvard Buhaug, a leading scholar on climate change and security with strong publication record and project management experience.

Max ERC Funding

1 996 945 €

Duration

Start date: 2015-09-01, End date: 2020-08-31

Project acronymCONSULTATIONEFFECTS

ProjectEffects of stakeholder consultations on inputs, processes and outcomes of executive policymaking

Researcher (PI)Adriana BUNEA

Host Institution (HI)UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN

Call DetailsStarting Grant (StG), SH2, ERC-2018-STG

SummaryConsultations with stakeholders (citizens and interest organizations) are frequently used by executive bureaucracies to design policies and formulate legislation. National ministries, regulatory agencies and the European Commission employ a variety of consultation designs that combine different practices - public consultations, public hearings, workshops, expert groups, advisory committees. Consultations are key to European economic growth strategies such as the Lisbon Agenda and Europe 2020. Despite their near ubiquitous use and legitimising rhetoric, there is currently no systematic analysis assessing empirically the assumption that stakeholders’ participation in policymaking via consultations improves policymaking and results in better outcomes and more legitimate governance. This project aims to address this gap and to systematically investigate and explain the effects of stakeholder consultation designs on policy inputs, processes and outcomes of executive policymaking in 29 political systems: all 28 EU Member States and the EU polity. The project pioneers a path-breaking conceptualisation of consultation designs as representative institutions similar to electoral systems. They play a key instrumental role in the institutional balance of power and constitute a new source of bureaucratic reputation, autonomy and power. The project elaborates an original theory explaining consultation effects on policymaking that accounts for the intrinsic challenges of democratising twenty-first century bureaucracies, and the inherent trade-offs of democratic and technocratic policymaking. Empirically, the project breaks new ground by designing an ambitious data collection strategy aimed to construct an unprecedented, cross-national, comparative dataset on stakeholder consultation designs and characteristics of inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes observed at policy proposal level, across policy areas and political systems.

Consultations with stakeholders (citizens and interest organizations) are frequently used by executive bureaucracies to design policies and formulate legislation. National ministries, regulatory agencies and the European Commission employ a variety of consultation designs that combine different practices - public consultations, public hearings, workshops, expert groups, advisory committees. Consultations are key to European economic growth strategies such as the Lisbon Agenda and Europe 2020. Despite their near ubiquitous use and legitimising rhetoric, there is currently no systematic analysis assessing empirically the assumption that stakeholders’ participation in policymaking via consultations improves policymaking and results in better outcomes and more legitimate governance. This project aims to address this gap and to systematically investigate and explain the effects of stakeholder consultation designs on policy inputs, processes and outcomes of executive policymaking in 29 political systems: all 28 EU Member States and the EU polity. The project pioneers a path-breaking conceptualisation of consultation designs as representative institutions similar to electoral systems. They play a key instrumental role in the institutional balance of power and constitute a new source of bureaucratic reputation, autonomy and power. The project elaborates an original theory explaining consultation effects on policymaking that accounts for the intrinsic challenges of democratising twenty-first century bureaucracies, and the inherent trade-offs of democratic and technocratic policymaking. Empirically, the project breaks new ground by designing an ambitious data collection strategy aimed to construct an unprecedented, cross-national, comparative dataset on stakeholder consultation designs and characteristics of inputs, processes, outputs and outcomes observed at policy proposal level, across policy areas and political systems.

Max ERC Funding

1 424 856 €

Duration

Start date: 2019-04-01, End date: 2024-03-31

Project acronymCRIMMIGRATION

Project'Crimmigration': Crime Control in the Borderlands of Europe

Researcher (PI)Katja Franko Aas

Host Institution (HI)UNIVERSITETET I OSLO

Call DetailsStarting Grant (StG), SH2, ERC-2010-StG_20091209

SummaryControl of migration is becoming an increasingly important task of contemporary policing and criminal justice agencies. The purpose of this project is to map the progressive intertwining and merging of crime control and migration control practices in Europe and to examine their implications.
The project is guided by three sets of research questions: 1) How do contemporary police and criminal justice institutions deal with unwanted mobility and the influx of „aliens‟ (i.e. non-citizens) to their territories? 2) What is the relevance of citizenship for European penal systems? and 3) How do contemporary crime control practices support and perform the task of (cultural and territorial) border control?
The project aims to analyse the impact of the growing emphasis on migration control on criminal justice agencies such as the police, prisons and detention facilities. The basic hypothesis of the project is that migration control objectives are contributing to the development of novel forms of punishment and new rationalities of social control termed „crimmigration‟. The project aims to describe these novel hybrid forms of control since they constitute important conceptual challenges for criminal justice scholarship and require new theoretical perspectives. A question will be asked: what kind of break from traditional criminal justice practices and principles do they represent? Is the focus on punishment and reintegration of offenders gradually being replaced by a focus on diversion, immobilisation and deportation? Moreover what kind of legal, organisational and normative responses do they require?

Control of migration is becoming an increasingly important task of contemporary policing and criminal justice agencies. The purpose of this project is to map the progressive intertwining and merging of crime control and migration control practices in Europe and to examine their implications.
The project is guided by three sets of research questions: 1) How do contemporary police and criminal justice institutions deal with unwanted mobility and the influx of „aliens‟ (i.e. non-citizens) to their territories? 2) What is the relevance of citizenship for European penal systems? and 3) How do contemporary crime control practices support and perform the task of (cultural and territorial) border control?
The project aims to analyse the impact of the growing emphasis on migration control on criminal justice agencies such as the police, prisons and detention facilities. The basic hypothesis of the project is that migration control objectives are contributing to the development of novel forms of punishment and new rationalities of social control termed „crimmigration‟. The project aims to describe these novel hybrid forms of control since they constitute important conceptual challenges for criminal justice scholarship and require new theoretical perspectives. A question will be asked: what kind of break from traditional criminal justice practices and principles do they represent? Is the focus on punishment and reintegration of offenders gradually being replaced by a focus on diversion, immobilisation and deportation? Moreover what kind of legal, organisational and normative responses do they require?

Max ERC Funding

1 309 800 €

Duration

Start date: 2011-04-01, End date: 2016-03-31

Project acronymEgalitarianism

ProjectEgalitarianism: Forms, Processes, Comparisons

Researcher (PI)Bruce Kapferer

Host Institution (HI)UNIVERSITETET I BERGEN

Call DetailsAdvanced Grant (AdG), SH2, ERC-2013-ADG

SummaryThe projects concerned with the heterogeneity of egalitarian structures, processes and value. This heterogeneity is approached through a) a library-based global comparative study and through b) field ethnographic studies, also comparatively oriented, in sites of egalitarian/inegalitarian crisis within Europe and elsewhere. The library and field studies are to be closely integrated, each influencing the development and directions of the other.
The decentering inherent in the orientation heterogeneity involves an emphasis on the forms and practices of egalitarianism as cultural phenomena emergent within and having their complexities of effect through the socio-cultural dimensions of their realities. The key proposition of the project is that it is egalitarian practices and processes as cultural values that is of considerable importance for understanding their force, contradictions, limitations. Thus in this approach dualism that is widely conceived as being politically and philosophically problematic in egalitarianism as a whole is approached as a cultural phenomenon potentially specific to Euro-American forms.
The emphasis on the heterogeneity of egalitarianism combined with the development of a comparative method appropriate to the heterogeneity of egalitarian processes, constitutes the distinction and the several contributions of the project to a fuller understanding of egalitarian processes, their constraints, limitations and potential. The method to be developed is to be open both to the varieties in the conceptions and imagination of egalitarian processes and the various historical, socio-political, and geo-ecological circumstances under which egalitarian practices emerge. Through the comparison perennial questions – the role of the state, religion, forms of economic distribution, the matter of scale – concerning forms and structures with egalitarian effect will be exposed to further consideration.

The projects concerned with the heterogeneity of egalitarian structures, processes and value. This heterogeneity is approached through a) a library-based global comparative study and through b) field ethnographic studies, also comparatively oriented, in sites of egalitarian/inegalitarian crisis within Europe and elsewhere. The library and field studies are to be closely integrated, each influencing the development and directions of the other.
The decentering inherent in the orientation heterogeneity involves an emphasis on the forms and practices of egalitarianism as cultural phenomena emergent within and having their complexities of effect through the socio-cultural dimensions of their realities. The key proposition of the project is that it is egalitarian practices and processes as cultural values that is of considerable importance for understanding their force, contradictions, limitations. Thus in this approach dualism that is widely conceived as being politically and philosophically problematic in egalitarianism as a whole is approached as a cultural phenomenon potentially specific to Euro-American forms.
The emphasis on the heterogeneity of egalitarianism combined with the development of a comparative method appropriate to the heterogeneity of egalitarian processes, constitutes the distinction and the several contributions of the project to a fuller understanding of egalitarian processes, their constraints, limitations and potential. The method to be developed is to be open both to the varieties in the conceptions and imagination of egalitarian processes and the various historical, socio-political, and geo-ecological circumstances under which egalitarian practices emerge. Through the comparison perennial questions – the role of the state, religion, forms of economic distribution, the matter of scale – concerning forms and structures with egalitarian effect will be exposed to further consideration.

Max ERC Funding

2 092 176 €

Duration

Start date: 2014-06-01, End date: 2019-05-31

Project acronymLITTLE TOOLS

ProjectEnacting the Good Economy: Biocapitalization and the little tools of valuation

Researcher (PI)Kristin Asdal

Host Institution (HI)UNIVERSITETET I OSLO

Call DetailsStarting Grant (StG), SH2, ERC-2014-STG

SummaryWhat shall we live off in the future? Where will our food come from, and what will form the basis for our economies? A so-called “blue revolution”, where fish become farmed rather than caught, is increasingly presented as an answer to the above questions. This transformation of the economy exemplifies ongoing efforts to produce new forms of capital out of the ordering and reordering of life. These processes are intimately related to the expanding life sciences, the bioeconomy and what is sometimes called new forms of biocapital.
But how do such large transformations take place in actual practice, and by which means? This project argues that if we are to understand such major transformations we need to study “little tools”, that is, material-semiotic entities that carefully modify and work upon bodies, markets and science.
Emerging bioeconomies are expected not only to produce economic value but also to enact values in other ways that contribute to what this project refers to as “the good economy”. Such values include enabling sustainable fisheries, secure animal welfare or sustainable growth.
The main hypothesis of the current project is that the enactment of the good economy can be studied by valuation practices performed by material-semiotic little tools. The project will explore this hypothesis at multiple sites for biocapitalization: science, the market, policy and funding institutions. This project will focus on how these interact and encounter one another. The aim is twofold: first, to provide new empirical insights about how biocapitalization processes are enacted in practice and at strategic sites, using cross-disciplinary methods from actor-network theory, the humanities and economic sociology; second to contribute analytically and methodologically to the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) by drawing on resources from economic sociology and the humanities in order to provide an analytical framework for comprehending biocapitalization practices.

What shall we live off in the future? Where will our food come from, and what will form the basis for our economies? A so-called “blue revolution”, where fish become farmed rather than caught, is increasingly presented as an answer to the above questions. This transformation of the economy exemplifies ongoing efforts to produce new forms of capital out of the ordering and reordering of life. These processes are intimately related to the expanding life sciences, the bioeconomy and what is sometimes called new forms of biocapital.
But how do such large transformations take place in actual practice, and by which means? This project argues that if we are to understand such major transformations we need to study “little tools”, that is, material-semiotic entities that carefully modify and work upon bodies, markets and science.
Emerging bioeconomies are expected not only to produce economic value but also to enact values in other ways that contribute to what this project refers to as “the good economy”. Such values include enabling sustainable fisheries, secure animal welfare or sustainable growth.
The main hypothesis of the current project is that the enactment of the good economy can be studied by valuation practices performed by material-semiotic little tools. The project will explore this hypothesis at multiple sites for biocapitalization: science, the market, policy and funding institutions. This project will focus on how these interact and encounter one another. The aim is twofold: first, to provide new empirical insights about how biocapitalization processes are enacted in practice and at strategic sites, using cross-disciplinary methods from actor-network theory, the humanities and economic sociology; second to contribute analytically and methodologically to the field of Science and Technology Studies (STS) by drawing on resources from economic sociology and the humanities in order to provide an analytical framework for comprehending biocapitalization practices.

Max ERC Funding

1 495 079 €

Duration

Start date: 2015-09-01, End date: 2020-08-31

Project acronymLORAX

ProjectThe Lorax Project: Understanding Ecosystemic Politics

Researcher (PI)Elana Tovah Wilson ROWE

Host Institution (HI)NORSK UTENRIKSPOLITISK INSTITUTT

Call DetailsStarting Grant (StG), SH2, ERC-2018-STG

SummaryThe Lorax project is a comparative effort to expand our understanding of global political architecture through the consideration of a potential set of ‘missing cases’, namely supranational policy fields organized around regional ecosystems. The project explores this question: Do regional politics around national border-crossing ecosystems share important resemblances and differ in significant ways from global politics? To address this question, the Lorax project analyzes the networks of actors, hierarchies between actors and diplomatic norms of the governance fields that have grown up around efforts to ‘speak for’ border-crossing ecosystems in three locations – the Arctic Ocean, the Amazon Basin, and the Caspian Sea.
‘Ecosystemic politics’ is meant to indicate regional-level political efforts justified by the shared management or discussion of collectively acknowledged ‘border-crossing’ ecosystems. Frequently, the political cooperation may be on issues that would be seen as environmental or regulatory politics relating to the ecosystem itself, but ecosystemic politics is not, by definition, limited to such questions of environmental politics. Rather, the word ‘ecosystemic’ gives the Lorax team a sense of where to look without presupposing the interests and issues that engaged actors may bring to those regional interactions.
The project aims to generate new insights about the architecture and dynamics of global governance by rigorously researching and then comparing three cases of policy fields around national border-crossing ecosystems. The team will consist of the PI, a postdoc, a PhD and additional senior researcher capacity as needed. An ambitious, but achievable, publication plan (9 articles, 1 book) is mapped out to ensure rigorous finalization of results and dissemination to social science fields engaged with supranational governance questions.

The Lorax project is a comparative effort to expand our understanding of global political architecture through the consideration of a potential set of ‘missing cases’, namely supranational policy fields organized around regional ecosystems. The project explores this question: Do regional politics around national border-crossing ecosystems share important resemblances and differ in significant ways from global politics? To address this question, the Lorax project analyzes the networks of actors, hierarchies between actors and diplomatic norms of the governance fields that have grown up around efforts to ‘speak for’ border-crossing ecosystems in three locations – the Arctic Ocean, the Amazon Basin, and the Caspian Sea.
‘Ecosystemic politics’ is meant to indicate regional-level political efforts justified by the shared management or discussion of collectively acknowledged ‘border-crossing’ ecosystems. Frequently, the political cooperation may be on issues that would be seen as environmental or regulatory politics relating to the ecosystem itself, but ecosystemic politics is not, by definition, limited to such questions of environmental politics. Rather, the word ‘ecosystemic’ gives the Lorax team a sense of where to look without presupposing the interests and issues that engaged actors may bring to those regional interactions.
The project aims to generate new insights about the architecture and dynamics of global governance by rigorously researching and then comparing three cases of policy fields around national border-crossing ecosystems. The team will consist of the PI, a postdoc, a PhD and additional senior researcher capacity as needed. An ambitious, but achievable, publication plan (9 articles, 1 book) is mapped out to ensure rigorous finalization of results and dissemination to social science fields engaged with supranational governance questions.

Max ERC Funding

1 496 848 €

Duration

Start date: 2019-01-01, End date: 2023-12-31

Project acronymMULTIRIGHTS

ProjectThe Legitimacy of Multi-level Human Rights Judiciary

Researcher (PI)Andreas Follesdal

Host Institution (HI)UNIVERSITETET I OSLO

Call DetailsAdvanced Grant (AdG), SH2, ERC-2010-AdG_20100407

SummaryThe proliferation of human rights treaties at regional and global levels may offer moral foundations for international law. However, many worry that this growth of supervisory organs is illegitimate. Consider, for instance
• The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is overburdened.
• The human rights organs may disagree e.g. on how to balance freedom of expression against protection from hate speech. Which should be obeyed?
• Citizens of well-functioning democracies ask: why should such international organs intervene?
The MultiRights team of international lawyers and political theorists will first scrutinize the claims of legitimacy deficits. We then consider reform proposals for global and European human rights organs: We develop four plausible models, ranging from Primacy of National Courts to a World Court of Human Rights. We will assess the models by four Contested Constitutional Principles of legitimacy, revised for our multilevel legal order: Human Rights values, the Rule of Law, Subsidiarity, and Democracy.
MultiRights thereby provides reasoned comparative assessment of models for human rights regime reforms, and contributes to better standards of legitimacy for international institutions. The findings also help us understand and assess the alleged ‘Constitutionalisation of International Law” - an urgent topic under globalization, when governance beyond states increases in density and impact.
The academic contributions of MultiRights will also benefit several reforms:
• the Interlaken Process on how to improve the ECtHR,
• the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights under the Lisbon Treaty,
• the UN Secretary General’s calls to reform the Human Rights treaty body system, and
• challenges to the democratic credentials of such human rights review.

The proliferation of human rights treaties at regional and global levels may offer moral foundations for international law. However, many worry that this growth of supervisory organs is illegitimate. Consider, for instance
• The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is overburdened.
• The human rights organs may disagree e.g. on how to balance freedom of expression against protection from hate speech. Which should be obeyed?
• Citizens of well-functioning democracies ask: why should such international organs intervene?
The MultiRights team of international lawyers and political theorists will first scrutinize the claims of legitimacy deficits. We then consider reform proposals for global and European human rights organs: We develop four plausible models, ranging from Primacy of National Courts to a World Court of Human Rights. We will assess the models by four Contested Constitutional Principles of legitimacy, revised for our multilevel legal order: Human Rights values, the Rule of Law, Subsidiarity, and Democracy.
MultiRights thereby provides reasoned comparative assessment of models for human rights regime reforms, and contributes to better standards of legitimacy for international institutions. The findings also help us understand and assess the alleged ‘Constitutionalisation of International Law” - an urgent topic under globalization, when governance beyond states increases in density and impact.
The academic contributions of MultiRights will also benefit several reforms:
• the Interlaken Process on how to improve the ECtHR,
• the accession of the EU to the European Convention on Human Rights under the Lisbon Treaty,
• the UN Secretary General’s calls to reform the Human Rights treaty body system, and
• challenges to the democratic credentials of such human rights review.